Overview
Title
National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is taking back a plan about how to think about pollution from gases that make the Earth warmer, so they can make a new and better one. They're doing this to help take care of the planet and keep everyone healthy.
Summary AI
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is withdrawing its draft guidance on considering greenhouse gas emissions in line with President Biden's Executive Order 13990, which aims to protect public health and the environment. This rescission is part of a larger effort to update and align environmental policies with current climate goals. Although the draft guidance is withdrawn, agencies are encouraged to use available resources, including the 2016 guidance, when assessing the climate impact of their actions. The CEQ will later announce any updates to the previous guidance.
Abstract
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is rescinding its "Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions" consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis."
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document pertains to a significant step taken by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is part of the U.S. federal government. The CEQ has decided to withdraw its draft guidance on how federal agencies should consider greenhouse gas emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This action aligns with an Executive Order from President Biden, aimed at restoring science-based approaches to tackling climate change and protecting public health and the environment.
Summary
The withdrawal of the draft guidance is a response to Executive Order 13990, which underscores the need to safeguard the environment and public health, while also leveraging science to combat the climate crisis. While this document does not implement new laws or binding regulations, it signals a shift in federal policy towards a more environmentally conscious stance. The CEQ has committed to reviewing and updating a previous document from 2016 that also addresses greenhouse gas considerations. During this interim period, federal agencies are directed to utilize the 2016 guidance and other resources to evaluate the impacts of climate change on their projects.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from this document that may be of concern. The document is somewhat technical, referencing various Executive Orders and guidance documents by their formal numbers, which may confuse those unfamiliar with government operations. There is also a notable lack of detail regarding how the CEQ intends to revise the 2016 guidance, including specific timelines or criteria for these updates. This absence of a clear action plan might be worrisome for individuals and organizations keen on tracking progress and ensuring accountability.
Moreover, the statement that rescinding the 2019 draft guidance does not alter existing laws or regulations may lead to ambiguity. Without further clarification on the practical effects of this decision, stakeholders might struggle to understand how immediate actions or plans could be impacted.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The public at large could perceive this document as a positive step in addressing climate change, as it promises a future realignment of federal environmental guidelines with science-based and environmentally sound practices. For those engaged in environmental advocacy, this move may signal a renewed commitment to addressing climate issues.
However, for federal agencies and other stakeholders directly involved in project approvals and environmental assessments, the withdrawal of the draft guidance without clear immediate replacement procedures could create uncertainty. Agencies must navigate this interim period by relying on previous guidance and additional tools available to them. This lack of clarity might slow down federal projects pending more concrete instructions.
The rescission of the draft guidance has the potential to positively impact states, industries, and communities keen on seeing stringent climate requirements reinstated. On the flip side, sectors reliant on fossil fuels or less stringent regulations might view these developments as adverse due to the anticipation of more rigorous environmental scrutiny in the future.
In conclusion, while the document signifies progress towards climate responsibility, the lack of detailed information about future plans leaves stakeholders in a temporary state of flux. The CEQ's future updates on guidance will be critical in shaping how federal projects are evaluated in terms of their environmental and climate impacts.
Issues
• The document does not include information about any specific financial implications or spending details, which makes it difficult to audit for wasteful spending or favoritism.
• The document mentions that the rescission of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement, but there is no further explanation on what practical effect this decision may have, which could lead to ambiguity.
• The document refers to various Executive Orders and previous guidance documents by their numbers and publication references, which may be overly complex or difficult for individuals unfamiliar with these references.
• There is a lack of detailed information about what the revision and update process for the 2016 GHG Guidance will entail, including timelines or criteria, which could be of concern for those interested in transparency and accountability.
• The document does not specify the potential impacts of rescinding the 2019 Draft GHG Guidance on current or future federal projects, which may lead to uncertainty or confusion.